Some investors like to break down their portfolio into several different asset and sub-asset classes. One long-standing example of the “slice-and-dice” is the “Ultimate Buy-and-Hold Portfolio” recommended by Paul Merriman (see pie chart; expanded labels below). You don’t need to hold every one of these asset classes, but when held in combination they historically offer a higher return with lower volatility.

• S&P 500 (US Large Cap Blend)
• US Large Value
• US Small
• US Small Value
• US REIT
• International Large Cap Blend
• International US Large Value
• International Small
• International Small Value
• Emerging Markets
• Short-term/Intermediate-term Bonds

For a long time, Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) offered some of the best lower-cost mutual funds tracking these types of sub-asset classes, but they also required you to invest through a DFA-affiliated financial advisor (and pay the accompanying management fees). Eventually, some former DFA executives and employees broke off and started Avantis ETFs, which are available to any investor with a brokerage accounts and offered a good DFA alternative. Avantis’ assets under management have been growing…

Lo and behold, DFA has just announced a big expansion of their DFA ETF lineup. Competition works!

Newly-listed DFA Bond ETFs

• Dimensional Core Fixed Income ETF (DFCF)
• Dimensional Short-Duration Fixed Income ETF (DFSD)
• Dimensional National Municipal Bond ETF (DFNM)
• Dimensional Inflation-Protected Securities ETF (DFIP)

Future DFA Equity ETFs

• International Core Equity 2 ETF
• Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF
• US Small Cap Value ETF
• International Small Cap ETF
• International Small Cap Value ETF
• Emerging Markets Value ETF
• US High Profitability ETF
• International High Profitability ETF
• Emerging Markets High Profitability ETF
• US Real Estate ETF

Existing DFA ETFs

• Dimensional US Core Equity Market ETF (DFAU)
• Dimensional International Core Equity Market ETF (DFAI)
• Dimensional Emerging Core Equity Market ETF (DFAE)
• Dimensional US Core Equity 2 ETF (DFAC)
• Dimensional US Equity ETF (DFUS)
• Dimensional US Small Cap ETF (DFAS)
• Dimensional US Targeted Value ETF (DFAT)
• Dimensional International Value ETF (DFIV)
• Dimensional World ex US Core Equity 2 ETF (DFAX)

Some of the confusing names are a result of these ETFs being conversions from the old mutual fund versions. Even though I try to keep things relatively simple and humble, I welcome these new investment options to the competitive marketplace along with their reasonably-low expense ratios. I may even switch my TIPS holdings to the DFA TIPS ETF (DFIP), as it is cheaper than the iShares TIPS Bond ETF (TIP).

I use Vanguard for my “core” index funds, but about 10% of my total portfolio is split between US Small Value and International/Emerging Small Value stocks. I recently bought/rebalanced into some of the new Avantis International Small Cap Value ETF (AVDV), but will keep an eye on the new DFA version. I suppose they could be a tax-loss harvesting ETF pair, but I have them inside a tax-sheltered account.

I always keep track of the Vanguard Target Retirement 20XX Funds (TRFs) because:

• They are a low-cost, broadly-diversified, “all-in-one” fund that I believe are a good starting point for both beginning investors and all investors that desire simple effectiveness along with professional management.
• I have recommended them to my own immediate family, and some of them hold Vanguard TRFs as a significant chunk of their retirement portfolios. I feel a responsibility to make sure they remain solid investments.
• I view them as an indicator of what Vanguard executives think is the optimal asset allocation mix for most people.

For a while now, one of the primary “cons” of Target Retirement Funds was that it would be much cheaper to buy the individual component ETFs yourself. You could build your own simple portfolio with only three ETFs – VTI (US stocks), VXUS (Global non-US stocks), and BND (US Bonds) at any brokerage firm. Your combined annual expense ratio would be about 0.05% (5 basis points). Yet, the Target Retirement Funds line-up currently charges between 0.12% and 0.15%. You could sign-up for the Vanguard Digital Advisor Services and and only pay 0.20% “all-in” (0.15% for the advice plus 0.05% from ETFs).

Vanguard recently announced they were “streamlining” the Target Retirement Fund line-up and lowering the expense ratio to 0.08% (8 basis points) for each TRF, with an estimated completion date of February 2022. That would be a 47% fee reduction for the stock-heavy TRFs, and a 33% cost reduction for the bond-heavy TRFs. Vanguard estimates $190 million in aggregate savings in 2022 alone as a result of this cost reduction.

As a result, Target Retirement Funds are again safely amongst the cheapest “advised” option for individual investors. By this, I mean that an individual investor decides how much money to put in and an algorithm makes the investment decisions. You don’t have to worry about picking the asset allocation, adjusting as you age, remembering to buy/sell different ETFs every month, enter limit orders, rebalance, and so on. You just send them $100, $500, whatever and it gets put to work. This is essentially the same idea as robo-advisors like Wealthfront, Betterment, and other “guided investing” services. Fidelity and Schwab now also have very low-cost index-based target-date funds.

(If you hold Vanguard TRFs in your 401k or other employer-sponsored tax-deferred account, you may own the institutional shares with an even lower expense ratio.)

There will also be a new fund option, called the Vanguard Target Retirement Income and Growth Fund/Trust. This is a fund designed for those in retirement but would like a higher (50%) stock allocation due to various reasons (greater desire for growth, less need for income). This new option would work well for wealthier investors that don’t need/expect to spend it all down and can thus take on more risk. The default Vanguard Target Retirement Income Fund/Trust will remain with its 30% stock allocation.

Here is the current glide path for Vanguard TRFs. For younger investors, TRFs hold 90% stocks and 10% bonds.

For reference, here is a brief history of the major tweaks to Vanguard Target Retirement fund portfolios:

• 2003: Target Retirement 20XX Funds are first introduced.
• 2006: Overall total stock exposure is increased slightly for various Target dates. Emerging markets stocks are added to certain Target dates with longer time horizons.
• 2010: International stocks as percentage of total stock allocation is increased from 20% to 30%. Three of the underlying funds (European Stock Index, Pacific Stock Index, and Emerging Markets Stock Index) were replaced by a single fund, Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund.
• 2013: International bonds are added as 20% of the total bond allocation. Vanguard Short-Term Inflation-Protected Securities Index Fund replaced the Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities Fund for certain Target dates with shorter time horizons.
• 2015: International stocks as percentage of total stock allocation increased from 30% to 40%. International bonds as percentage of total bond allocation increased from 20% to 30%.

Here’s a follow-up to my post about the return gap of retail investors due to poor timing. For every seller of a stock share, there is a buyer. Therefore, if the timing of retail investors is reliably a little worse than average, we also know that someone else is on the other side of all those trades. Is there a group of non-retail investors that is reliably making money off the “dumb money” trades of retail investors?

Larry Swedroe digs into this question in his Advisor Perspectives article The Suckers at the Investment Table:

New research confirms that institutional investors, such as mutual funds, outperform the market before fees, and they do so at the expense of retail investors. That is bad news for retail investors and for investors in active mutual funds, who underperform after fees.

The research finds that the stocks and bonds individual investors buy go on to underperform and the ones they sell go on to outperform – demonstrating that retail investors are “dumb money.”

Unfortunately for fund investors, the same large body of evidence demonstrates that while mutual funds generate gross alpha, their total expenses exceed gross alpha, resulting in negative alphas for their investors.

If on average, an actively-managed mutual fund generates 0.7% of gross alpha, but after you subtract the expense ratio and trading costs which add up to nearly 1%, the net alpha is still negative. The active manager is the winner, taking all of the alpha for themselves in the form of relentless fees taken as a percentage of the entire asset base. The retail investor/customer still loses out. An fairer fee structure would be to take a larger percentage, but of the alpha only.

People will continue to argue about this, but I’m not surprised to see that these studies found alpha. It’s just much, much harder to do than most people think, and that’s exactly why you almost never see a fee structure based on alpha (thought they do exist). Even Charlie Munger, who is famous for his stock-picking skills and disagreement against the “hard” form of Efficient Market Theory, only says that the top 3% to 4% of professional investment managers will outperform (source):

I think it is roughly right that the market is efficient, which makes it very hard to beat merely by being an intelligent investor. But I don’t think it’s totally efficient at all. And the difference between being totally efficient and somewhat efficient leaves an enormous opportunity for people like us to get these unusual records. It’s efficient enough, so it’s hard to have a great investment record. But it’s by no means impossible. Nor is it something that only a very few people can do. The top three or four percent of the investment management world will do fine.

In the end, costs always matter. If you find a genius to pick stocks but they cost more than they help, then you still lose. The only actively-managed mutual funds that I have seriously considered buying are from Vanguard, which improves the odds with substantially lower expense ratios and a history of investor-friendly practices. As a DIY individual investor buying index funds, you can keep your head down and “grind out” reliably above-average returns over time due to the rock-bottom costs. (There, I fit in my own poker reference!) Even as a DIY individual stock investor, as at least I understand what I own and don’t have to pay a 1% management fee every year.

Periodically, Vanguard publishes asset class return forecasts for the next 10 years. Here is their most recent one for September 2021. To their credit, they have also published a recent follow-up post tracking both those forecasts alongside the actual returns in retrospect. This is a good lesson on the difficulty of any sort of short-term market prediction, even after allowing yourself 10 years and wide error bars.

Below is a chart tracking their forecasts for the future 10-year average annualized returns of US stocks. Eyeballing their chart, for 2010-2020 their range of confidence was somewhere between roughly 5% and 10% annually, for a median around 7.5%. This accounts for their model’s 25th percentile to 75th percentage range of possible outcomes. This is a pretty big range! $100,000 times 5% annualized returns after 10 years is $163,000. $100,000 times 10% annualized returns after 10 years is $259,000.

Even accounting for that wide range, their forecast for US stocks was off. While the curve looks vaguely similar, US stocks did significantly better than their forecast:

Again, even accounting for the huge range of guesses, their forecast for international stocks was also off. Global non-US stocks did significantly worse than their forecast:

Vanguard’s original chart focuses on their 60/40 portfolio, which happens to look a lot better. Why? Their 60/40 portfolio consists of 36% US equities, 24% global ex-US equities, 28% US bonds, and 12% ex-US bonds. For one, future bond returns are much more simple to predict than stock returns. Your current 10-year yield is going to be pretty close to your eventual 10-year return. In addition, their US equities forecast was really wrong in one direction (too low), while their international equity forecast was wrong in the other direction (too high), so they tended to offset each other. Is this diversification in action? Certainly, yes, but also luck in my opinion. Both could have also been wrong in the same direction.

Should we just ignore this stuff completely then? I keep thinking back to this illuminating chart comparing the contributions of earnings growth, dividends, and P/E ratio changes to the total return of the S&P 500. Earnings growth and dividends have been pretty consistent for over 70 years, but the overall swings in return have been mostly caused by P/E ratio expansion and contraction.

Consider the analogy that P/E ratio expansion and contraction behaves like a rubber band. It can stretch pretty far, much farther than you might expect, but as you keep stretching it, the stronger it will eventually want to come back. But you never really know how far it can stretch, or when it will snap back. Forecasts can be wrong for a long, long time. You have to balance knowing that the run will end eventually, but not knowing when. Someone will always be right in retrospect.

If only we could focus solely on the earnings growth and dividends. Those are what really matter in the long run. This is the behavioral benefit of remembering that dividends are a share of profits being distributed to you as a business owner. Even if prices on a screen are dropping, the businesses are still working hard, making profits, reinvesting some for more earnings growth, and sending some of it to you as cash.

Just over 45 years ago on August 31st, 1976, the late Jack Bogle started the first index mutual fund at Vanguard. It nearly didn’t get off the ground, garnering only 7% of the initial funding goal – it wasn’t even enough to buy shares of all the stocks in the S&P 500! Read Bogle’s own take from exactly 10 years ago at this 9/3/2011 WSJ article to better appreciate it took determination and stubbornness to make this happen.

Industry leaders mocked “Bogle’s folly”, wondering aloud why anyone would voluntarily agree to be “just average”. Well, Bogle had common sense and simple math on his side. He knew that over time, his fund was guaranteed to be above average due to it’s low costs. Some active mutual funds would outperform for a while, sure, but would there be reliable persistence in those superior returns? It turns out, very little. These days, people worry more about too much index fund investment.

Over time, more and more investors have realized the power of low costs. They are running away from high-cost funds. Morningstar just released it 2020 U.S. Fund Fee Study (free with registration). From the Executive Summary:

The average expense ratio paid by fund investors is half of what it was two decades ago. Between 2000 and 2020, the asset-weighted average fee fell to 0.41% from 0.93%. Investors have saved billions as a result.

(Thank you, Mr. Bogle.)

This chart shows the new investments flows into the cheapest 20% of funds (blue) against the remaining 80% (red) over the last 20 years:

Morningstar research has demonstrated that fees are a reliable predictor of future returns. Low-cost funds generally have greater odds of surviving and outperforming their more-expensive peers. […] Since 2000, net flows into funds charging fees that rank within the cheapest 20% of their Morningstar Category group have trended higher. Flows for the remaining 80% of funds have been negative in nine of the past 10 years.

Vanguard and it’s dirt-cheap index clones are winning. If you look closer, it’s the really low-cost funds that are gathering the most new investment. These are mostly the big names that have started competing directly with Vanguard on cost – iShares, Schwab, Fidelity, SPDR.

Of the $445 billion that flowed into the cheapest 20% of funds and share classes in 2020, nearly all of it went into the cheapest of the cheap, as 93% of net new money flowed into the least costly 5% of all funds.

Investors voted with their money. Follow this trend and continue to effect change with your investment choices. Look for a low-cost fund option in your 401k, and ask why if you don’t see it.

According to Multpl.com, the P/E ratio of the S&P 500 is now 35, and the dividend yield is only 1.3%. The all-time low dividend yield was 1.11% back in August 2020. Even if you consider stock buybacks, the earnings yield is less than 3%! That means if corporations all distributed every penny of their profits as dividends, it still wouldn’t be higher than 3%. Before we go any further, I’m not advocating market timing, as people were saying that the S&P 500 was “overvalued” back in 2015 when the P/E ratio was 25 and the dividend yield was 2%. Nobody truly knows what will happen to prices in the short-term.

Even if the P/E ratio seems a lot higher now than the historical average, what has that actually meant? The Morningstar article How Much Has the Market Benefited from Investor Optimism? examines how much of the historical return of the S&P 500 from 1976 through March 2021 was from P/E expansion.

In January 1976, the P/E ratio was only 11.8. In March 2021, the P/E ratio was 31.5. That seems like a huge difference, and over that 45-year time period, it did add 2.2% to the overall historical average annual return. But we also got 3% from earning growth, and another 2.75% from dividends, for a total return of ~8% above inflation. 8% real return!

In a way, this is somewhat comforting, as if you look at the long-term, a shrinking P/E ratio won’t completely destroy your retirement by itself. Instead of adding 2%, it might subtract 2%.

Looking ahead, if you assume a generous 4% from earnings growth, 0% from a constant P/E ratio, and 1.3% from dividends, that’s roughly a 5% future real return. But if the P/E ratio goes back even partly back to historical averages, that will be closer to a 4% real return. The problem is that bonds are giving us 0% real return at best, so I’m sticking with owning productive businesses.

The numbers on my brokerage statements keep going up so perhaps I shouldn’t complain, but I sure hope the earnings start to catch up to the prices soon (as some predict). I like the idea of the P/E ratio going down due to higher earnings rather than lower prices!